Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ken, you accidentally attributed the quote to MamaArcher. Douglas, it's not a fallacy in that they feel they are "righting a wrong". We don't just let things stand in err; we try to correct them.
Any time we are called to give control over to GOd and we refuse it is sin, we are to be in submission to the Lord in ALL things. My hubby has had a vas. reversal, we have 8 children thuxs far, 3 of them are reversal babies.
I have not officially rendered an opinion on this thread yet, but I would like to point out a logical fallacy here. It has been stated that practicing birth control or having a vasectomy/tubal ligation is sin because it is God who opens/closes the womb and we should not take matters into our own hands. Therefore, we should not have that surgery that tries to take control out of God's hands to open/close the womb.
Then those same people that have made this argument talk about how they have had the reversal surgery. The logical fallacy is that this is once again taking matters into their own hands, in order to re-open the womb that is closed. They are not trusting in God to give them children in their present state, but trying surgery to help matters a bit. This is inconsistent.
I say this as one whose wife had her tubes tied and we have regretted the decision.
What if a woman chooses not to have children for what ever reason? We are assuming that she is married. Should the husband as the covenant head tell her she nneds to have them and that she is in sin for not having them?
You could try what one of our Christian friends did. When someone said "You know, they've discovered what causes that", she said "Yes, and I'm gooood at it". ;-) It might quiet some people up.
As for birth control, I don't know if this is too personal, but we struggle with this in a BIG way. My wife has only C-sections but we live in China. Thus far she has had three C-sections in less-than-first-world facilities and we fear having more here but simply can't find the scripture to support stopping. We have adopted and will continue to adopt (Habib, Bereket, Sentiyehu, and Dagem should be here before Spring of 2008) because we feel called to it, and would likely do so even if my wife was able to have children naturally.
There is a huge difference (huge) in being childless naturally and being childless for the sake of convenience or personal choice. If we are sticking to the idea that God opens and closes the womb, how dare we remove the womb by our own hand? I just don't get it.
We've had plenty of people (family, even) tell me it was time to snip-snip, and that it was dangerous for Elizabeth to continue in this fashion. If we trust him to open and close the womb, and that children are a blessing, will we not also trust that he will protect us in childbirth or take us as His will decrees?
Kevin,
Just some thoughts for your consideration;
IF we restrict our discussion to a situation where someone’s health or even life is in danger or possible danger, I would humbly submit we do not need a scripture to justify birth control because a) God never condemns it, b) God never commands procreation in a manner that would conflict with birth control use. I know some or many will disagree with b), but that is my position for the time being, as I tried to explain in my earlier post on this thread.
The fact that God opens and closes the womb does not, by itself preclude us from using wisdom and prudence in managing childbirth UNLESS God has also said he wants us to keep our hands off. I do not believe such a command is found in the bible. God opens and closes the sky for rain, but we dig ditches for drainage and carry umbrellas based on the weather forecast. God controls sickness and health, but we buy medical insurance and use doctors. God says in Psalm 127 (one of the Psalms that extols the blessing of children) that unless he builds the house or watches the city the builder/watchmen labour in vain. We trust him, but that does not mean we do not build/watch ourselves.
I believe it is no good simply saying ‘Trust God’. We must trust in a specific promise. God does expect us to use means to take care of ourselves. Again, it boils down to: Is procreation commanded/contraception condemned? If so, then we trust God to look after us whatever happens. But if not, we can and should use prudent medical means to guard against danger.
Please do not take offence, but since you volunteered information on your personal situation, I very, very humbly submit that it is not wisdom for a woman with a husband and five or more children depending on her to put her life at risk unless she has to. And if God has not condemned birth control, it is right, I believe, to use such means to avoid danger. When the devil invited Jesus Christ to test the promises of God by flinging himself from the top of the temple, the Lord declined because the obvious and wise thing to do would be to take the stairs. Likewise, if a woman is already pregnant and faced with substandard medical facilities we submit to God’s will and trust him. But before that, I see no sin at all in using BC to avoid getting into that situation.
Andrew Myers has some good material on BC somewhere on the board. You would do well to look over it. Andrew is a consumate scholar on all things "reformed".
I will have to get back to you on this - time to pick my dad up from the airport! Cab is at the door...
But in brief - this is exactly the issue that we are struggling with and why I am so interested in this thread. Blessings, brother. More later.
LOL!Those commands are so in the Old Testament. We're under grace now.
Mark, you present a false dilemma in your consequentialist calculation as you neglected the options of abstinence or periodic abstinence. There are medical conditions that require the suspension of normal relations, and you need to explain why a medical condition that makes pregnancy dangerous is not another example of such a condition.
You have presented the use of birth control as a viable alternative in the case where the woman's health may be in danger from pregnancy, but using birth control is not the only alternative available. The couple could abstain altogether. It seems to me that if Calvin was right that birth control is the moral equivalent of abortion then abstinence is a far better choice than birth control. This option would both protect the health of the woman and would not waste seed.
You have presented the use of birth control as a viable alternative in the case where the woman's health may be in danger from pregnancy, but using birth control is not the only alternative available. The couple could abstain altogether. It seems to me that if Calvin was right that birth control is the moral equivalent of abortion then abstinence is a far better choice than birth control. This option would both protect the health of the woman and would not waste seed.
Well noted, Scott; perhaps you could put the word "better" before "protect" and it would make your point conclusive. If becoming pregnant presents medical dangers to the extent the couple feel they can't have children, why would they risk falling pregnant at all?
I think I tried to answer this above, where I said that abstience as an option is out since it is explicitly forbidden, unlike b/c.
I suppose the question being begged here is where abstinence is ruled out as an option. You refer to 1 Cor. 7, but Paul provides those instructions to those who are battling the issue of "uncleanness" not medical dangers. There is no prohibition to abstain in the case of physical weakness. Abstinence is a form of birth control, so it is unhelpful to make them separate things.
When sexual relations are being discussed it is more correct to speak of contraception. Contraception belonged to the sphere of witchcraft in the old world, and is condemned as a work of the flesh in Gal. 5:20
I should have clarified myself and said I was referring to completely abstinence as a rule of marriage. I do agree that abstaining for a time is allowed in cases of physical weakness. I do think 1 Cor 7 would rule out complete abstinence within a marriage as sinful.
I don't see contraception, or indeed anything to do with sex in Galations 5:20. How do we tell from the bible, and not the old world, that contraception = witchcraft?
If you allow physical weakness to be a basis of abstinence, then perpetual physical weakness must be a basis for perpetual abstinence. Now if you allow medical problems to be a reason why a couple should not have children, it is clear that there is perpetual physical weakness, and the best way to avoid such dangers (if they are real and not merely a doctor's hypothetical) is perpetual abstinence.
A study of the biblical presentation of witchcraft can only reveal generals from which specifics can be deduced; but the study will be well worth the effort. Ancient magic was inherently manipulative. Greco-Roman magic had a specific utilitarian concern. Witchcraft seeks the distortion of the "phusis" or of the mind's conception of "phusis" for personal ends. As I noted in an earlier post, the Bible represents human biology as a good to be sought in itself, and not as an instrument to be manipulated for our good.
You ignored my point that perpetual abstinence is forbidden by the bible. That is why I do not believe the logic will flow in that direction. If there is a problem with a woman's body whereby pregnancy will harm her, the best way to avoid danger is to avoid pregnancy. If perpetual abstinence is condemned, the best course is though some form of contraception.
I had always thought the essence of witchcraft to be not in manipulation, but in unlawful supernatural power. Deut and Exodus speak of familiar spirits in the context of witchcraft, I believe. If we follow your definition, why are all science and medicine not condemned, since they too manipulate either the natural world or the body.
Thank you for your interaction, but I suspect that even if we pursue this, no one's mind will be changed at the end of the day. I feel that I am done with his subject for a time being.
A study of the biblical presentation of witchcraft can only reveal generals from which specifics can be deduced; but the study will be well worth the effort. Ancient magic was inherently manipulative. Greco-Roman magic had a specific utilitarian concern. Witchcraft seeks the distortion of the "phusis" or of the mind's conception of "phusis" for personal ends. As I noted in an earlier post, the Bible represents human biology as a good to be sought in itself, and not as an instrument to be manipulated for our good.